<p>Athletics is a revenue generator in more ways than just ticket sales. You have to factor in sweatshirts, mugs, bumper stickers, and alumni donations motivated by school spirit.</p>
<br>
<blockquote>
<p>it would behoove a student and his/her parents to drop the music, debate, etc and do sports instead.>>></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>The kids who do music, debate etc are (hopefully) not doing them for getting admission into college any more than the athletes are doing their sport.</p>
<p>^^Yes. Even if a particular sport doesn't make money for the school, a winning athletic team -- be it football or fencing -- keeps alumni happy, engaged, and willing to donate. Winning violists and debaters don't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let us turn the tables for a second and ask: When choosing players for a top ranked national football team (eg Florida, USC, Utah), should coaches factor in players' GPAs and SAT scores? If there are two excellent quarterbacks to pick from, should the coach choose the one with the higher GPA, or the one who is a slightly better player than the other? Similarly, should Julliard or Curtis factor in GPAs and SAT's when they pick musicians for their conservatories? Well, they don't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Julliard does not pretend to be a regular school. It is a conservatory: it trains professional musicians.</p>
<p>Basically what you are doing here is admitting that as far as football is concerned those "institutions" are not regular schools, they are professional football training facilities.</p>
<p>wjb #82: And I'm OK with that. C'est la vie. Might as well let the kids learn where the priorities are in our society.</p>
<p>Consolation #83: My point is that Julliard is willing to focus on just ONE criterion for admission- artistic merit. The football coach is willing to focus on just ONE criterion- football playing ability. Sure, they do have minimal standards (eg, Julliard does want you to graduate from high school and college football has some minimal standards for coursework and grades), but beyond these minimal standards, there are no brownie points to be earned. </p>
<p>I think there is something odd that we have not one academic institution in this country that is willing to declare that it will use just ONE criterion for admission- academic merit.</p>
<p>vp -- As I said upthread, I have no problem with it, either. Americans love sports, and though I'm not a big sports fan, I'm a big Top Chef fan, so I get rooting for your team, your guy. ;) </p>
<p>I also understand that the money that enriches my kid's university via its athletics programs may help fund something he wants to do that has nothing at all to do with athletics. So, Go Bulldogs!</p>
<p>A kid at my school, who's in the top 25/256 maybe, decent grades, 26 ACT (no SAT), no other ECs except football was recruited from Yale. Our football team has never been good, but this year we made it to the playoffs for the third time in schools history, (Impressive, I know) and won our first ever playoff game (lost in second round of playoffs). He'd be the first person to ever go to an Ivy in school's history, and of course he turned them down. Reason... there wouldn't be any good parties... idiot.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The "premium" Harvard, Princeton, and their peers place on scholar-athletes has nothing at all to do with a determination that a scholar-athlete is somehow better, more dedicated, more talented, or more worthy than a scholar-musician (or a scholar-debater, scholar-scientist, etc.). It has to do with which type of student generates more revenue for the university. No contest there.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>It has more to do with whether they can fill a key slot on a college spots team rather than the revenue itself. Football is probably the only sport at Harvard that generates any revenue to speak of, but being recruited by the varsity coaches for other sports can still be a huge admissions boost.</p>
<p>If there is promising Div.1 talent in the offing, Harvard and other schools will be eager to enroll the star sprinters, swimmers, rowers, and tennis players far beyond their desire to enroll any given musicians, even though the chances of getting any revenue off those "minor" sports is nil.</p>
<p>I corrected the statement you just quoted, coureur. Even if a particular sport doesn't generate revenue, a winning athletic team keeps interested alumni engaged and willing to donate to their alma mater. That's money in the bank for the school. A fencer will inspire more donations than a flautist any day.</p>
<p>Based on observing the experiences of student athletes in a range of sports (swimming, skiing, running, soccer, rowing), the most important reason for an athlete to pursue a sport is for enjoyment - not as a hook for getting into college. Too many things can intervene along the way: injuries, developmental 'plateau', burnout, difficult teammates and/or coaches that can drive an athlete to drop out, other factors. IMHO, if a student athlete finds his/her sport rewarding (in terms of fitness, friends, satisfaction from working hard at something and succeeding at some level, even winning), the years of hard work and commitment have been worthwhile. If the opportunity is also there to play in college, great. If the sport is a helpful 'hook', also great. But to some degree whether the sport will 'help' in the college process is out of the student's (and parents') control. In spite of all the years of training and competing, there are usually no guarantees until late in the high school years.</p>
<p>I now realize what musicians need: intercollegiate competitions. </p>
<p>Perhaps if they decided to hold orchestra/string quartet/soloist competitions musicians would suddenly become valuable. Maybe Bravo or A&E or PBS would broadcast them.</p>
<p>I am not, appearances to the contrary, joking.</p>
<p>"Also, I give short shrift to sour-grapes campus rumor-mongering about a student's academic performance and abilities. It is unlikely that this swimmer is academically unqualified to do the work at Harvard, otherwise, why would they accept him? They have no reason to take a potential drop-out. To the contrary."</p>
<p>First, D has been in numerous classes with this athlete and has a good handle on his academic prowess, just as all the kids in the Honors/AP track know very well where they stand vis-vis one another after 3+ years of high school. He has never been at the top of the academic heap. He's not in NHS (and the standards for admission aren't that high). He was not honored at the breakfast for seniors scoring more than 700 in any single SAT exam. He was accepted because he was a star swimmer and had a sibling at the school, not because he had ever given any indication he was qualified to do the work. But I'm not naive. Once you're accepted into a place like Harvard, you're in for the long haul. I have no doubt he'll get through by taking the easiest classes possible and with the extra boost that student athletes can get--free tutoring, pressure on profs to pass them, etc. And he'll walk out with the same degree as the academic superstars.</p>
<p>Harvard can do whatever it pleases. Life isn't fair. I told this story only to point out that a star athlete in a less visible sport like swimming can get into at least this one Ivy with quite unimpressive academic credentials--and that is directly pertinent to the title of this thread. And of course the same applies throughout the college tiers. My S was accepted into an excellent non Ivy university. Two of his roommates were athletes who had never taken a single honors class in high school. They never opened a book. He couldn't have a normal conversation with them. He was shocked. But everyone should understand that this is the way it goes, from the Ivies on down.</p>
<p>My freshman roommate in college was a math major - who also could not have a normal conversation - and never read any form of literature in his life. Incredible math talent - but completely lacking in all other skills. 1300 SAT - just like mine - except his was 800 500 rather than 650 650.</p>
<p>My point is that imbalance can occur in any area - not just the jocks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard can do whatever it pleases. Life isn't fair. I told this story only to point out that a star athlete in a less visible sport like swimming can get into at least this one Ivy with quite unimpressive academic credentials
<p>MommaJ- I think you have an incorrect view. My kid is at an Ivy and was recruited for a sport (which he doesn't participate in due to injury). His stats were within range, but by the standards on this forum, not exceptional. He certainly doesn't take easy courses and he has a very high GPA. SAT scores and high school grades aren't the only measures of intelligence and success in college. Perhaps the discipline he learned through getting up in the dark and cold and practicing his sport alone served him well?????</p>
<p>The student in question comes from a smaller state, not NY. And I don't disagree that he might be a "big deal" in many ways, have enormous self-discipline that may serve him well in college, etc. and may be a hell of a kid. But I think most people presume that an outstanding academic record is the minimum required for an Ivy acceptance, with various "hooks" being what puts certain students over the top. I think many would be surprised to learn that the right hook changes the academic requirement significantly.</p>
<p>As for my previous comment about 30 spots for Ivy Football. that is what the rule states BUT that is what they have for fully slotted athletes. While I don't claim to know the details in the least (and perhaps it would be nice to have a variety of coaches commenting on here the same way some admission officers do to dispel some of the myths with facts), some are definitely probably recruited, but may not have had or even need the "full weight" of the department behind him to be accepted because frankly, they only needed a second look as they stood out enough on their own between the grades, etc.. And while it's not ivy league in all cases, my son has been told his grades/scores are too good to be a "slotted" player at some schools and at others he would get in without any athletic recommendation whatsoever based squarely on his record of grades, etc. Quite frankly, as a two sport athlete (from a recruiting standpoint) the responses he has had have been all over the map from "if you get in, we'd love to have you." to "Please let us know if we can help" to "We really want you to come here, and will recommend your application" to "you're in if you commit EA or ED or EDII."</p>
<p>And while football players may not be overwhelmingly for their intelligence, it pays to be a very intelligent and talented football player. However, I will also say that between lacrosse and football, my son also spends a lot of time icing wounds, going to chiropractors and more just so he can get back on the field to do it all over again. But I've said it before and I'll say it again, my son never played any sport with the idea that this will be his ticket into a school -- any school. He played because he loved it. He got better because he was dedicated. But all along we just kept him in good helmets because in the end, it's what he has done with his brain that will carry the most weight.</p>